Justin wrote:
>A professor at a Jesuit school compares Catholicism to Scientology . . . .
>? --jks
I was just explaining what's wrong with Scientology, in case someone didn't
know. But to actually makes such a comparison:
I predict that when Scientology is as old as Catholicism, it will be as
"normal" and as respectable, applying fraudulent methods as rarely as
Catholicism does. When it's been around as long as Mormonism, it will be as
normal and respectable as that religion, applying fraudulent methods as
rarely as the Mormons do. If they get beyond the initial cult phase,
religions usually mellow out with time, under the influence of reasonable
people inside and external legal forces. (Note that I am not apologizing
for the Catholics or the Mormons. I can tell you stories...)
BTW, the Catholic Worker movement is much better than the Catholic
hierarchy, though it tends to be quite shrill.
In response to my missive about the contradiction between the conservative
Christian advocacy of government funding for religion-based services and
the possibility that the Scientology church might want to get involved,
Justin wrote:
>>What about Catholic Workers? (Who really do provide social services.) --jks
I responded:
>Scientology seems to provide social services, such as drug treatment. But
>the recipients usually join the "church" and then max out their credit
>cards to donate to the followers of the late L. Ron Hubbard, so that they
>join the ranks of modern debt peonage. They bust their butts trying to
>satisfy the higher-ups (who are organized in a Navy-style hierarchy). BTW,
>converts such as John Travolta and Tom Cruise are treated differently.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
